Let me try again and be less verbose:
Is there a way to have hosts = with a lookup file ignore
failed lookups until the entire list is processed?
>From my tests it seems like if a domain fails to lookup then the test
fails even if a later name in the host list does lookup and then
matches the ip of the connecting machine.
Second question is off topic, but from your reading of the RFCs is
a valid envelope sender is required?
The mail in question was:
mail from: <invalid local>@<valid domain>
From: <invalid local>@<valid domain>
To: <real sender's addres>
Reply-To: <real sender's address>
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:56:37AM -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> I'm using an accept hosts file lookup for use in white-listing some
> hosts.
>
> accept hosts = ${if exists{CONFDIR/local_host_whitelist}\
> {CONFDIR/local_host_whitelist}\
> {}}
>
> I realize IP addresses are better, but if I have a list of domain
> names in that file and one of them fails to lookup then processing
> stops and the accept fails. That is if my list looks like:
>
> invalid_domain.com
> exim.org
>
> Then when exim.org connects it is not accepted because invalid_domain.com
> didn't lookup and processing of the list stopped.
>
> Is it possible to ignore the failed dns lookups until the *entire* list
> is processed? In the example above, ignore that invalid_domain.com
> failed to lookup and then test for a match on exim.org?
>
>
>
> BTW -- this came up due to a problem with sender verify. I know it's
> a debatable practice. I've been using it for a year or two on a few
> small domains and it's been a huge help.
>
> But, about once or twice a year I have a host that send out legitimate
> mail with invalid envelope sender addresses (once that can't be sent
> mail) and I need to white list them.
>
> I'm not clear from my scan of rfc2821, but are senders required to
> use valid envelope sender addresses? If they really don't want
> bounces back would a null sender be more appropriate than using an
> invalid address?
>
>
> The latest one sends mail on behalf of others. They send an invalid
> local part of the envelope sender. They use that same address in
> their From: header. Then they place a valid address in the Reply-To:
> header (which also matches the To: header).
>
> They claim the mail is fine because the envelope sender includes a
> valid domain name and also that they include a valid Reply-To:
> header. My spam filters don't agree. ;)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bill Moseley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
> ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
> ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
>
--
Bill Moseley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
